Rheumatology News

Over one-third of undisclosed industry payments made to physician-authors of American College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines were relevant to guideline recommendations, according to a recent review in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

frankpeters/Getty Images

Since 2014, 56 of 89 total physician-authors across five ACR clinical practice guidelines have been paid a total of $9,728,751 from industry sources. Nineteen of 89 authors received $1,961,362 in industry payments that were directly relevant to a guideline’s recommendations, and $699,561 of these payments (35.7%) were undisclosed, according to Cole Wayant, of the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, and colleagues.

The ACR’s Policy and Procedure Manual for Clinical Practice Guidelines, last updated in January 2015, allows up to 49% of authors in a clinical practice guideline to have financial conflicts of interest, including intellectual conflicts of interest, and requires them to report those relationships. When the ACR creates a call for letters of interest for a guideline, it includes a list of companies and organizations that could be affected by the guideline topic. To be considered conflict free, an author must not have ties to these companies and organizations for 1 year before the deadline on the letter of interest and 1 year after a guideline is published. This policy extends to members of an ACR guideline development group, literature review team, and voting panel. Under these guidelines, an author who has any relationship with a company is considered conflicted, which counts toward this total.

Mr. Wayant and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of five ACR guidelines published since August 2014 on axial spondyloarthritis (27 authors), glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (21 authors), RA (26 authors), perioperative management of antirheumatic medication (31 authors), and polymyalgia rheumatica (46 authors). Using the Open Payments Database, the researchers searched for any general (speaking fees, consulting fees, education, honoraria, travel, food, or beverage payments) research, associated research, and ownership (stocks or dividends) relationships reported by guideline authors in the 12 months before a guideline was published. The guidelines on axial spondyloarthritis, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and RA contained specific recommendations for classes of medications or branded drugs, and conflicts from authors in those guidelines were assessed to determine relevancy of those payments.

Of the 56 physician-authors who received at least one payment (62.9%), the median payment was $522. However, 51 authors reported receiving more than $1,000, 42 authors reported more than $10,000, 20 authors reported more than $100,000, and 2 authors reported more than $1 million. Overall, 14 of 56 authors (25.0%) reported having no financial conflicts of interest, but did in fact receive some payment, and $4,189,090 of the $9,728,751 (43.1%) was not reported. The researchers said that the 19 authors with directly relevant payments were members of the voting panel (11 authors), literature review team (6 authors), and core leadership team (3 authors).

Physician-authors of clinical practice guidelines receiving payments from industry is not an issue specific to rheumatology. In an interview, Mr. Wayant said that authors of clinical guidelines across many different medical specialties often work closely with industry and hold “numerous conflicts of interest.”

“If professional societies are meant to be the public face of specialty providers, one would expect the guideline authors to resemble all society members,” Mr. Wayant said. “However, we routinely find that authors of professional society guidelines have large financial conflicts of interest that exceed the national average, indicating that the views and opinions of guideline authors may not reflect the opinion of most providers.”

These financial relationships between industry and physician authors have been shown to affect research results. A Cochrane Review published in 2017 evaluating industry sponsorship and research outcomes found that studies sponsored by industry were more likely to have favorable efficacy results and conclusions, compared with studies not sponsored by industry sources (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033). As medical societies continue to become more involved with clinical practice guidelines, recommendations from physician-authors with financial ties to industry can present a conflict of interest. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines often affect reimbursement of a drug from insurance, and an author can vote for a drug recommendation in a guideline that may not match patient values and preferences, noted Mr. Wayant.

“These authors are fundamentally different from the average rheumatologist that stays up to date with the medical literature, in terms of financial ties to industry,” he said. “Removing the influence of for-profit companies from guideline development cannot harm the rigor of the guideline recommendations, since many medical professionals without conflicts are experts in evidence-based medicine and study appraisal.”

Being financially linked to industry does not automatically make one the most qualified candidate for deciding which therapies are best for patients, Mr. Wayant explained, and guidelines should reflect the values of patients and the medical profession, rather than industry.

“Given the importance of guidelines, [we] encourage the ACR and all professional societies to do everything possible to be above reproach and seek out authors who do not have financial conflicts to write the guidelines,” he said.

The authors reported having no funding source for the study. One author reported serving on an advisory board for Janssen involving infliximab and golimumab, for Sanofi Genzyme involving sarilumab, and receiving payment for a survey from Comsort. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41224.

Over one-third of undisclosed industry payments made to physician-authors of American College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines were relevant to guideline recommendations, according to a recent review in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

frankpeters/Getty Images

Since 2014, 56 of 89 total physician-authors across five ACR clinical practice guidelines have been paid a total of $9,728,751 from industry sources. Nineteen of 89 authors received $1,961,362 in industry payments that were directly relevant to a guideline’s recommendations, and $699,561 of these payments (35.7%) were undisclosed, according to Cole Wayant, of the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, and colleagues.

The ACR’s Policy and Procedure Manual for Clinical Practice Guidelines, last updated in January 2015, allows up to 49% of authors in a clinical practice guideline to have financial conflicts of interest, including intellectual conflicts of interest, and requires them to report those relationships. When the ACR creates a call for letters of interest for a guideline, it includes a list of companies and organizations that could be affected by the guideline topic. To be considered conflict free, an author must not have ties to these companies and organizations for 1 year before the deadline on the letter of interest and 1 year after a guideline is published. This policy extends to members of an ACR guideline development group, literature review team, and voting panel. Under these guidelines, an author who has any relationship with a company is considered conflicted, which counts toward this total.

Mr. Wayant and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of five ACR guidelines published since August 2014 on axial spondyloarthritis (27 authors), glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (21 authors), RA (26 authors), perioperative management of antirheumatic medication (31 authors), and polymyalgia rheumatica (46 authors). Using the Open Payments Database, the researchers searched for any general (speaking fees, consulting fees, education, honoraria, travel, food, or beverage payments) research, associated research, and ownership (stocks or dividends) relationships reported by guideline authors in the 12 months before a guideline was published. The guidelines on axial spondyloarthritis, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and RA contained specific recommendations for classes of medications or branded drugs, and conflicts from authors in those guidelines were assessed to determine relevancy of those payments.

Of the 56 physician-authors who received at least one payment (62.9%), the median payment was $522. However, 51 authors reported receiving more than $1,000, 42 authors reported more than $10,000, 20 authors reported more than $100,000, and 2 authors reported more than $1 million. Overall, 14 of 56 authors (25.0%) reported having no financial conflicts of interest, but did in fact receive some payment, and $4,189,090 of the $9,728,751 (43.1%) was not reported. The researchers said that the 19 authors with directly relevant payments were members of the voting panel (11 authors), literature review team (6 authors), and core leadership team (3 authors).

Physician-authors of clinical practice guidelines receiving payments from industry is not an issue specific to rheumatology. In an interview, Mr. Wayant said that authors of clinical guidelines across many different medical specialties often work closely with industry and hold “numerous conflicts of interest.”

“If professional societies are meant to be the public face of specialty providers, one would expect the guideline authors to resemble all society members,” Mr. Wayant said. “However, we routinely find that authors of professional society guidelines have large financial conflicts of interest that exceed the national average, indicating that the views and opinions of guideline authors may not reflect the opinion of most providers.”

These financial relationships between industry and physician authors have been shown to affect research results. A Cochrane Review published in 2017 evaluating industry sponsorship and research outcomes found that studies sponsored by industry were more likely to have favorable efficacy results and conclusions, compared with studies not sponsored by industry sources (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033). As medical societies continue to become more involved with clinical practice guidelines, recommendations from physician-authors with financial ties to industry can present a conflict of interest. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines often affect reimbursement of a drug from insurance, and an author can vote for a drug recommendation in a guideline that may not match patient values and preferences, noted Mr. Wayant.

“These authors are fundamentally different from the average rheumatologist that stays up to date with the medical literature, in terms of financial ties to industry,” he said. “Removing the influence of for-profit companies from guideline development cannot harm the rigor of the guideline recommendations, since many medical professionals without conflicts are experts in evidence-based medicine and study appraisal.”

Being financially linked to industry does not automatically make one the most qualified candidate for deciding which therapies are best for patients, Mr. Wayant explained, and guidelines should reflect the values of patients and the medical profession, rather than industry.

“Given the importance of guidelines, [we] encourage the ACR and all professional societies to do everything possible to be above reproach and seek out authors who do not have financial conflicts to write the guidelines,” he said.

The authors reported having no funding source for the study. One author reported serving on an advisory board for Janssen involving infliximab and golimumab, for Sanofi Genzyme involving sarilumab, and receiving payment for a survey from Comsort. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41224.

Over one-third of undisclosed industry payments made to physician-authors of American College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines were relevant to guideline recommendations, according to a recent review in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

frankpeters/Getty Images

Since 2014, 56 of 89 total physician-authors across five ACR clinical practice guidelines have been paid a total of $9,728,751 from industry sources. Nineteen of 89 authors received $1,961,362 in industry payments that were directly relevant to a guideline’s recommendations, and $699,561 of these payments (35.7%) were undisclosed, according to Cole Wayant, of the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, and colleagues.

The ACR’s Policy and Procedure Manual for Clinical Practice Guidelines, last updated in January 2015, allows up to 49% of authors in a clinical practice guideline to have financial conflicts of interest, including intellectual conflicts of interest, and requires them to report those relationships. When the ACR creates a call for letters of interest for a guideline, it includes a list of companies and organizations that could be affected by the guideline topic. To be considered conflict free, an author must not have ties to these companies and organizations for 1 year before the deadline on the letter of interest and 1 year after a guideline is published. This policy extends to members of an ACR guideline development group, literature review team, and voting panel. Under these guidelines, an author who has any relationship with a company is considered conflicted, which counts toward this total.

Mr. Wayant and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of five ACR guidelines published since August 2014 on axial spondyloarthritis (27 authors), glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (21 authors), RA (26 authors), perioperative management of antirheumatic medication (31 authors), and polymyalgia rheumatica (46 authors). Using the Open Payments Database, the researchers searched for any general (speaking fees, consulting fees, education, honoraria, travel, food, or beverage payments) research, associated research, and ownership (stocks or dividends) relationships reported by guideline authors in the 12 months before a guideline was published. The guidelines on axial spondyloarthritis, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and RA contained specific recommendations for classes of medications or branded drugs, and conflicts from authors in those guidelines were assessed to determine relevancy of those payments.

Of the 56 physician-authors who received at least one payment (62.9%), the median payment was $522. However, 51 authors reported receiving more than $1,000, 42 authors reported more than $10,000, 20 authors reported more than $100,000, and 2 authors reported more than $1 million. Overall, 14 of 56 authors (25.0%) reported having no financial conflicts of interest, but did in fact receive some payment, and $4,189,090 of the $9,728,751 (43.1%) was not reported. The researchers said that the 19 authors with directly relevant payments were members of the voting panel (11 authors), literature review team (6 authors), and core leadership team (3 authors).

Physician-authors of clinical practice guidelines receiving payments from industry is not an issue specific to rheumatology. In an interview, Mr. Wayant said that authors of clinical guidelines across many different medical specialties often work closely with industry and hold “numerous conflicts of interest.”

“If professional societies are meant to be the public face of specialty providers, one would expect the guideline authors to resemble all society members,” Mr. Wayant said. “However, we routinely find that authors of professional society guidelines have large financial conflicts of interest that exceed the national average, indicating that the views and opinions of guideline authors may not reflect the opinion of most providers.”

These financial relationships between industry and physician authors have been shown to affect research results. A Cochrane Review published in 2017 evaluating industry sponsorship and research outcomes found that studies sponsored by industry were more likely to have favorable efficacy results and conclusions, compared with studies not sponsored by industry sources (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033). As medical societies continue to become more involved with clinical practice guidelines, recommendations from physician-authors with financial ties to industry can present a conflict of interest. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines often affect reimbursement of a drug from insurance, and an author can vote for a drug recommendation in a guideline that may not match patient values and preferences, noted Mr. Wayant.

“These authors are fundamentally different from the average rheumatologist that stays up to date with the medical literature, in terms of financial ties to industry,” he said. “Removing the influence of for-profit companies from guideline development cannot harm the rigor of the guideline recommendations, since many medical professionals without conflicts are experts in evidence-based medicine and study appraisal.”

Being financially linked to industry does not automatically make one the most qualified candidate for deciding which therapies are best for patients, Mr. Wayant explained, and guidelines should reflect the values of patients and the medical profession, rather than industry.

“Given the importance of guidelines, [we] encourage the ACR and all professional societies to do everything possible to be above reproach and seek out authors who do not have financial conflicts to write the guidelines,” he said.

The authors reported having no funding source for the study. One author reported serving on an advisory board for Janssen involving infliximab and golimumab, for Sanofi Genzyme involving sarilumab, and receiving payment for a survey from Comsort. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wayant C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41224.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with psoriatic arthritis can be symptomatic for years before the condition is diagnosed, according to two recent reports.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie-Beatty

There are no reliable diagnostic biomarkers, and sometimes patients have vague symptoms with only minimal physical findings, which makes it hard for physicians to recognize the problem and refer to rheumatology.

In the meantime, the longer it takes to diagnose psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and treat it properly, the worse off patients are when it’s finally caught. They “present with a greater rate of clinical progression and worse physical function, compared with patients with an undelayed diagnosis,” and more radiographic joint damage, according to investigators led by rheumatologist Alexis Ogdie, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Ogdie’s study in BMC Rheumatology, and a second one from Arthritis Care & Research, both described the early phase of psoriatic arthritis, before formal diagnosis, to help with early recognition.
 

Delay associated with misdiagnosis

Dr. Ogdie’s team surveyed 203 adults with PsA – average age of 52 years, mostly white, and over 80% women – about their diagnosis history. The time between seeking medical attention for PsA-related symptoms and receiving a diagnosis was less than 6 months for 69 participants, 6 months to 4 years for 68, and 5 years or more for 66.

Typical symptoms, like joint pain, swollen joints, reduced range of motion, and dactylitis, were associated with quicker diagnosis. Turning early to dermatologists and rheumatologists – instead of general practitioners, orthopedics, chiropractors, and others – sped diagnosis, as well. People diagnosed within 6 months also tended to be slightly older, were less likely to be disabled or unemployed, have more education, and were more likely to make $100,000 per year or more.

Vaguer symptoms, such as stiffness, fatigue, and enthesitis-associated foot pain, delayed diagnosis. The longer PsA went unrecognized, the more likely people were to be misdiagnosed with osteoarthritis, psychosomatic disorders, and other problems.

“Increased recognition of heterogeneous symptoms associated with PsA, as well as understanding existing diagnostic barriers, may lead to prompt diagnosis and initiation of appropriate treatment that may improve outcomes,” the investigators concluded.
 

A prodromal phase

In the Arthritis Care & Research study, investigators led by Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, used health records and databases to compare primary care histories of 462 Canadian PsA patients in the 5 years before they were diagnosed with 2,310 age- and sex-matched controls without PsA and treated by the same family physicians. The mean age in the study was 54 years, and just over half the subjects were women. Socioeconomic status and rurality were similar between the two groups.

Courtesy Michael Wong/Women's College Hospital

The mean time from the initial primary care visit for a musculoskeletal complaint to rheumatology referral was 513 days among PsA patients, “which was substantially longer than for other inflammatory arthritic conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Eder and associates noted.

PsA patients were more than twice as likely to visit primary care for nonspecific musculoskeletal issues in the year before their diagnosis, and more likely in the 5 years prior. The odds of visits to musculoskeletal specialists, joint injections, joint imaging, and ED visits, was also higher as early as 5 years before PsA recognition, and hinted at the impending diagnosis.

“Our study characterized a prediagnosis period in PsA and supports the notion that a prodromal PsA phase occurs in a significant proportion of patients. ... This pattern reveals some of the underlying causes of diagnosis delays of PsA and highlights the need for diagnostic strategies and novel reliable biomarkers to aid in early diagnosis of PsA,” the investigators concluded.

Dr. Ogdie and colleagues suggested that community case searches, public awareness programs, patient education, and referral guidelines for primary care providers might help. They also suggested greater use of validated screening tools, such as the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, in primary care.

Dr. Eder had no disclosures, and her study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Dr. Ogdie’s study was funded by Novartis, maker of secukinumab (Cosentyx), which is indicated for PsA. She is a consultant for Novartis and has received grant support from the company. One author is an employee.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Ogdie A et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0102-7; Eder L et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24146.

People with psoriatic arthritis can be symptomatic for years before the condition is diagnosed, according to two recent reports.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie-Beatty

There are no reliable diagnostic biomarkers, and sometimes patients have vague symptoms with only minimal physical findings, which makes it hard for physicians to recognize the problem and refer to rheumatology.

In the meantime, the longer it takes to diagnose psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and treat it properly, the worse off patients are when it’s finally caught. They “present with a greater rate of clinical progression and worse physical function, compared with patients with an undelayed diagnosis,” and more radiographic joint damage, according to investigators led by rheumatologist Alexis Ogdie, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Ogdie’s study in BMC Rheumatology, and a second one from Arthritis Care & Research, both described the early phase of psoriatic arthritis, before formal diagnosis, to help with early recognition.
 

Delay associated with misdiagnosis

Dr. Ogdie’s team surveyed 203 adults with PsA – average age of 52 years, mostly white, and over 80% women – about their diagnosis history. The time between seeking medical attention for PsA-related symptoms and receiving a diagnosis was less than 6 months for 69 participants, 6 months to 4 years for 68, and 5 years or more for 66.

Typical symptoms, like joint pain, swollen joints, reduced range of motion, and dactylitis, were associated with quicker diagnosis. Turning early to dermatologists and rheumatologists – instead of general practitioners, orthopedics, chiropractors, and others – sped diagnosis, as well. People diagnosed within 6 months also tended to be slightly older, were less likely to be disabled or unemployed, have more education, and were more likely to make $100,000 per year or more.

Vaguer symptoms, such as stiffness, fatigue, and enthesitis-associated foot pain, delayed diagnosis. The longer PsA went unrecognized, the more likely people were to be misdiagnosed with osteoarthritis, psychosomatic disorders, and other problems.

“Increased recognition of heterogeneous symptoms associated with PsA, as well as understanding existing diagnostic barriers, may lead to prompt diagnosis and initiation of appropriate treatment that may improve outcomes,” the investigators concluded.
 

A prodromal phase

In the Arthritis Care & Research study, investigators led by Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, used health records and databases to compare primary care histories of 462 Canadian PsA patients in the 5 years before they were diagnosed with 2,310 age- and sex-matched controls without PsA and treated by the same family physicians. The mean age in the study was 54 years, and just over half the subjects were women. Socioeconomic status and rurality were similar between the two groups.

Courtesy Michael Wong/Women's College Hospital

The mean time from the initial primary care visit for a musculoskeletal complaint to rheumatology referral was 513 days among PsA patients, “which was substantially longer than for other inflammatory arthritic conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Eder and associates noted.

PsA patients were more than twice as likely to visit primary care for nonspecific musculoskeletal issues in the year before their diagnosis, and more likely in the 5 years prior. The odds of visits to musculoskeletal specialists, joint injections, joint imaging, and ED visits, was also higher as early as 5 years before PsA recognition, and hinted at the impending diagnosis.

“Our study characterized a prediagnosis period in PsA and supports the notion that a prodromal PsA phase occurs in a significant proportion of patients. ... This pattern reveals some of the underlying causes of diagnosis delays of PsA and highlights the need for diagnostic strategies and novel reliable biomarkers to aid in early diagnosis of PsA,” the investigators concluded.

Dr. Ogdie and colleagues suggested that community case searches, public awareness programs, patient education, and referral guidelines for primary care providers might help. They also suggested greater use of validated screening tools, such as the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, in primary care.

Dr. Eder had no disclosures, and her study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Dr. Ogdie’s study was funded by Novartis, maker of secukinumab (Cosentyx), which is indicated for PsA. She is a consultant for Novartis and has received grant support from the company. One author is an employee.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Ogdie A et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0102-7; Eder L et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24146.

People with psoriatic arthritis can be symptomatic for years before the condition is diagnosed, according to two recent reports.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie-Beatty

There are no reliable diagnostic biomarkers, and sometimes patients have vague symptoms with only minimal physical findings, which makes it hard for physicians to recognize the problem and refer to rheumatology.

In the meantime, the longer it takes to diagnose psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and treat it properly, the worse off patients are when it’s finally caught. They “present with a greater rate of clinical progression and worse physical function, compared with patients with an undelayed diagnosis,” and more radiographic joint damage, according to investigators led by rheumatologist Alexis Ogdie, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Ogdie’s study in BMC Rheumatology, and a second one from Arthritis Care & Research, both described the early phase of psoriatic arthritis, before formal diagnosis, to help with early recognition.
 

Delay associated with misdiagnosis

Dr. Ogdie’s team surveyed 203 adults with PsA – average age of 52 years, mostly white, and over 80% women – about their diagnosis history. The time between seeking medical attention for PsA-related symptoms and receiving a diagnosis was less than 6 months for 69 participants, 6 months to 4 years for 68, and 5 years or more for 66.

Typical symptoms, like joint pain, swollen joints, reduced range of motion, and dactylitis, were associated with quicker diagnosis. Turning early to dermatologists and rheumatologists – instead of general practitioners, orthopedics, chiropractors, and others – sped diagnosis, as well. People diagnosed within 6 months also tended to be slightly older, were less likely to be disabled or unemployed, have more education, and were more likely to make $100,000 per year or more.

Vaguer symptoms, such as stiffness, fatigue, and enthesitis-associated foot pain, delayed diagnosis. The longer PsA went unrecognized, the more likely people were to be misdiagnosed with osteoarthritis, psychosomatic disorders, and other problems.

“Increased recognition of heterogeneous symptoms associated with PsA, as well as understanding existing diagnostic barriers, may lead to prompt diagnosis and initiation of appropriate treatment that may improve outcomes,” the investigators concluded.
 

A prodromal phase

In the Arthritis Care & Research study, investigators led by Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, used health records and databases to compare primary care histories of 462 Canadian PsA patients in the 5 years before they were diagnosed with 2,310 age- and sex-matched controls without PsA and treated by the same family physicians. The mean age in the study was 54 years, and just over half the subjects were women. Socioeconomic status and rurality were similar between the two groups.

Courtesy Michael Wong/Women's College Hospital

The mean time from the initial primary care visit for a musculoskeletal complaint to rheumatology referral was 513 days among PsA patients, “which was substantially longer than for other inflammatory arthritic conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Eder and associates noted.

PsA patients were more than twice as likely to visit primary care for nonspecific musculoskeletal issues in the year before their diagnosis, and more likely in the 5 years prior. The odds of visits to musculoskeletal specialists, joint injections, joint imaging, and ED visits, was also higher as early as 5 years before PsA recognition, and hinted at the impending diagnosis.

“Our study characterized a prediagnosis period in PsA and supports the notion that a prodromal PsA phase occurs in a significant proportion of patients. ... This pattern reveals some of the underlying causes of diagnosis delays of PsA and highlights the need for diagnostic strategies and novel reliable biomarkers to aid in early diagnosis of PsA,” the investigators concluded.

Dr. Ogdie and colleagues suggested that community case searches, public awareness programs, patient education, and referral guidelines for primary care providers might help. They also suggested greater use of validated screening tools, such as the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, in primary care.

Dr. Eder had no disclosures, and her study was funded by the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Dr. Ogdie’s study was funded by Novartis, maker of secukinumab (Cosentyx), which is indicated for PsA. She is a consultant for Novartis and has received grant support from the company. One author is an employee.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Ogdie A et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 10. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0102-7; Eder L et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24146.

Low serum levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus are associated with a threefold increased likelihood of physician- and patient-reported nonadherence to the medication. In addition, routine monitoring of HCQ levels are associated with improvements in adherence and disease activity.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

Those are two key findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Arthritis Care & Research.

“HCQ is recommended for all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, or lupus) to reduce disease activity and improve damage-free-survival,” the authors, led by Shivani Garg, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in the article. “Yet, up to 83% of lupus patients are nonadherent to HCQ commonly because of poor understanding of benefits of HCQ, lack of motivation to continue therapy, and inflated concerns regarding side effects from HCQ use.”

For their analysis, the researchers drew from 17 published observational and interventional studies that measured HCQ levels and assessed adherence or Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in adults with SLE. They used forest plots to compare pooled estimates of correlations between HCQ levels and reported nonadherence, or SLEDAI scores. Patient-reported nonadherence was defined as less than 80% medication adherence reported, and physician-reported adherence was estimated based on physicians’ interpretations of the previous month’s adherence as reported by patients during clinic visits.

The study population consisted of 1,223 patients. Dr. Garg and colleagues found a threefold higher odds of reported nonadherence in patients with low HCQ levels (odds ratio, 2.95; P less than .001). The mean SLEDAI score was 3.14 points higher in a group with below-threshold HCQ levels on a priori analysis (P = .053), and 1.4 points higher in a group with HCQ levels below 500 ng/mL (P = .039). Among all patients, those with HCQ levels 750 ng/mL or greater had a 58% lower risk of active disease, and their SLEDAI score was 3.2 points lower. “Our study support levels greater than or equal to 750 ng/mL to be clinically meaningful and statistically significant to identify disease flare (change in SLEDAI greater than or equal to 3 points) and predict active disease (SLEDAI greater than or equal to 6),” the authors wrote.

In an interview, Michelle A. Petri, MD, MPH, took issue with the HCQ goal of 750 ng/mL or greater recommended by the authors. “I think that was premature,” said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We presented data at last year’s ACR [which showed] that the level needs to be higher than that to prevent thrombosis. But it is important to open the discussion that HCQ blood levels are not just for nonadherence. I believe they will help us to reduce retinopathy, and also to make sure the dose remains in an efficacious range, such as what is needed to prevent thrombosis.”

Dr. Petri, who also directs the Hopkins Lupus Center, said that the study’s overall conclusions confirms the need for blood testing for HCQ to identify nonadherence. “Everyone remembers the saying of the [former] Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop: ‘Drugs can’t work if patients don’t take them!’ – in particular, blood levels which represent what the patient has taken in the last month. I call blood levels the ‘lupus A_1C.’ ”

She added that HCQ blood levels have utility for nonadherence, prediction of retinopathy, and prevention of thrombosis. Such tests “are now much more widely available, including by some large national laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics, as well as by Exagen. No more excuses.” LabCorp plans to start offering HCQ blood level testing by the middle of 2020, she said.

In their manuscript, the study authors acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the fact that there were only four studies that measured HCQ levels and nonadherence or SLEDAI. “Second, most of the studies that examined the correlation between reported adherence and HCQ blood levels were performed in Europe, and there was only one small U.S. study,” they wrote. “Therefore, generalizability for our findings could be limited because of differences in cultural beliefs, social issues, and insurance/medical coverage in populations from diverse countries.”

The study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Petri disclosed that she has conducted research on HCQ that was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She has also conducted research for Exagen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24155.

Low serum levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus are associated with a threefold increased likelihood of physician- and patient-reported nonadherence to the medication. In addition, routine monitoring of HCQ levels are associated with improvements in adherence and disease activity.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

Those are two key findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Arthritis Care & Research.

“HCQ is recommended for all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, or lupus) to reduce disease activity and improve damage-free-survival,” the authors, led by Shivani Garg, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in the article. “Yet, up to 83% of lupus patients are nonadherent to HCQ commonly because of poor understanding of benefits of HCQ, lack of motivation to continue therapy, and inflated concerns regarding side effects from HCQ use.”

For their analysis, the researchers drew from 17 published observational and interventional studies that measured HCQ levels and assessed adherence or Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in adults with SLE. They used forest plots to compare pooled estimates of correlations between HCQ levels and reported nonadherence, or SLEDAI scores. Patient-reported nonadherence was defined as less than 80% medication adherence reported, and physician-reported adherence was estimated based on physicians’ interpretations of the previous month’s adherence as reported by patients during clinic visits.

The study population consisted of 1,223 patients. Dr. Garg and colleagues found a threefold higher odds of reported nonadherence in patients with low HCQ levels (odds ratio, 2.95; P less than .001). The mean SLEDAI score was 3.14 points higher in a group with below-threshold HCQ levels on a priori analysis (P = .053), and 1.4 points higher in a group with HCQ levels below 500 ng/mL (P = .039). Among all patients, those with HCQ levels 750 ng/mL or greater had a 58% lower risk of active disease, and their SLEDAI score was 3.2 points lower. “Our study support levels greater than or equal to 750 ng/mL to be clinically meaningful and statistically significant to identify disease flare (change in SLEDAI greater than or equal to 3 points) and predict active disease (SLEDAI greater than or equal to 6),” the authors wrote.

In an interview, Michelle A. Petri, MD, MPH, took issue with the HCQ goal of 750 ng/mL or greater recommended by the authors. “I think that was premature,” said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We presented data at last year’s ACR [which showed] that the level needs to be higher than that to prevent thrombosis. But it is important to open the discussion that HCQ blood levels are not just for nonadherence. I believe they will help us to reduce retinopathy, and also to make sure the dose remains in an efficacious range, such as what is needed to prevent thrombosis.”

Dr. Petri, who also directs the Hopkins Lupus Center, said that the study’s overall conclusions confirms the need for blood testing for HCQ to identify nonadherence. “Everyone remembers the saying of the [former] Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop: ‘Drugs can’t work if patients don’t take them!’ – in particular, blood levels which represent what the patient has taken in the last month. I call blood levels the ‘lupus A_1C.’ ”

She added that HCQ blood levels have utility for nonadherence, prediction of retinopathy, and prevention of thrombosis. Such tests “are now much more widely available, including by some large national laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics, as well as by Exagen. No more excuses.” LabCorp plans to start offering HCQ blood level testing by the middle of 2020, she said.

In their manuscript, the study authors acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the fact that there were only four studies that measured HCQ levels and nonadherence or SLEDAI. “Second, most of the studies that examined the correlation between reported adherence and HCQ blood levels were performed in Europe, and there was only one small U.S. study,” they wrote. “Therefore, generalizability for our findings could be limited because of differences in cultural beliefs, social issues, and insurance/medical coverage in populations from diverse countries.”

The study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Petri disclosed that she has conducted research on HCQ that was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She has also conducted research for Exagen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24155.

Low serum levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus are associated with a threefold increased likelihood of physician- and patient-reported nonadherence to the medication. In addition, routine monitoring of HCQ levels are associated with improvements in adherence and disease activity.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

Those are two key findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis published in Arthritis Care & Research.

“HCQ is recommended for all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, or lupus) to reduce disease activity and improve damage-free-survival,” the authors, led by Shivani Garg, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, wrote in the article. “Yet, up to 83% of lupus patients are nonadherent to HCQ commonly because of poor understanding of benefits of HCQ, lack of motivation to continue therapy, and inflated concerns regarding side effects from HCQ use.”

For their analysis, the researchers drew from 17 published observational and interventional studies that measured HCQ levels and assessed adherence or Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in adults with SLE. They used forest plots to compare pooled estimates of correlations between HCQ levels and reported nonadherence, or SLEDAI scores. Patient-reported nonadherence was defined as less than 80% medication adherence reported, and physician-reported adherence was estimated based on physicians’ interpretations of the previous month’s adherence as reported by patients during clinic visits.

The study population consisted of 1,223 patients. Dr. Garg and colleagues found a threefold higher odds of reported nonadherence in patients with low HCQ levels (odds ratio, 2.95; P less than .001). The mean SLEDAI score was 3.14 points higher in a group with below-threshold HCQ levels on a priori analysis (P = .053), and 1.4 points higher in a group with HCQ levels below 500 ng/mL (P = .039). Among all patients, those with HCQ levels 750 ng/mL or greater had a 58% lower risk of active disease, and their SLEDAI score was 3.2 points lower. “Our study support levels greater than or equal to 750 ng/mL to be clinically meaningful and statistically significant to identify disease flare (change in SLEDAI greater than or equal to 3 points) and predict active disease (SLEDAI greater than or equal to 6),” the authors wrote.

In an interview, Michelle A. Petri, MD, MPH, took issue with the HCQ goal of 750 ng/mL or greater recommended by the authors. “I think that was premature,” said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We presented data at last year’s ACR [which showed] that the level needs to be higher than that to prevent thrombosis. But it is important to open the discussion that HCQ blood levels are not just for nonadherence. I believe they will help us to reduce retinopathy, and also to make sure the dose remains in an efficacious range, such as what is needed to prevent thrombosis.”

Dr. Petri, who also directs the Hopkins Lupus Center, said that the study’s overall conclusions confirms the need for blood testing for HCQ to identify nonadherence. “Everyone remembers the saying of the [former] Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop: ‘Drugs can’t work if patients don’t take them!’ – in particular, blood levels which represent what the patient has taken in the last month. I call blood levels the ‘lupus A_1C.’ ”

She added that HCQ blood levels have utility for nonadherence, prediction of retinopathy, and prevention of thrombosis. Such tests “are now much more widely available, including by some large national laboratories such as Quest Diagnostics, as well as by Exagen. No more excuses.” LabCorp plans to start offering HCQ blood level testing by the middle of 2020, she said.

In their manuscript, the study authors acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the fact that there were only four studies that measured HCQ levels and nonadherence or SLEDAI. “Second, most of the studies that examined the correlation between reported adherence and HCQ blood levels were performed in Europe, and there was only one small U.S. study,” they wrote. “Therefore, generalizability for our findings could be limited because of differences in cultural beliefs, social issues, and insurance/medical coverage in populations from diverse countries.”

The study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Petri disclosed that she has conducted research on HCQ that was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She has also conducted research for Exagen.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garg S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24155.

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”